1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he is Vice President of Zilla Parishad, Malkangiri and exclusively for his political executive purpose, he purchased one Mahindra Verito D6 bearing Chassis No. MA1LSRJKFD2H90026 and Engine No. D179243 for an amount of Rs. 6,70,449/- from the O.P.No.1  on 03.10.2013 under higher purchase agreement being financed by the O.P.No.5  and got registered with RTA, Malkangiri and insured the same with O.P.No.4.  The allegations of Complainant is that on 25.01.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident near village Titibiri in the district of Malakangiri and he reported the matter at Malkangiri P.S. and reported the matter to the O.P.No.4 and as per advise of O.P.No.4 on 29.01.2015 he shifted the damaged vehicle to the service centre of O.P.No.1.  It is also alleged that though 7 months have been passed, the O.P. No. 1 did not handover the alleged vehicle to him, rather he has paid Rs. 25,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 on demand and in this regard, he contacted with all the O.Ps but all efforts got in veined.  Thus alleging deficiency in service he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to deliver the vehicle with good running condition within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and the O.P.No.1 & 3 to pay the EMIs to the O.P. No. 5 being collected from O.P.No.4, if any, and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receipt the notice from this Fora, the O.P.No. 1 appeared in this case and filed their written version admitting the service carried out by them but strictly challenged the allegations of the complainant stating that the alleged vehicle was shifted to their service centre on 30.01.2015 for its repair and on 04.02.2015 they have estimated the repair charges for Rs. 2,49,588.27 and as per terms and conditions they instructed the Complainant to deposit 50% of estimated value in advance to take up the repair work.  It is also contended that though the proper scrutiny and preliminary survey made by the surveyor of O.P.No.4, the Complainant did not choose to deposit the 50% of estimated price, rather he paid only Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 1,25,000/-, but keeping on good faith, they carried out the repair work as on 17.10.2015 and suggested him for final survey by insurance surveyor and with other contentions, denying their liability on the point of deficiency in service, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No.2 appeared in this case and filed their written version admitting the selling of alleged vehicle to the Complainant, but strictly denied that the subject matter of the present disputes is no way related with them, as there is no specific allegation made against them and with contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case and filed their written version stating that though they are the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle, but the alleged vehicle was sold by the O.P.No.2 with whom they have principal to principal relationship so also with the O.P.No.1.  Further they have contended that since the claims of Complainant arising out of an accident, the warranty of the alleged vehicle seized as on date of accident, as such denying their liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. The O.P.No.4 though appeared in the case, but did not choose to file their written version inspite of several opportunities have given keeping in view of natural justice, however they have participated in the hearing.
    
6. The O.P.No.5 appeared in this case and filed their written version denying their liability, have stated that they are only the financier of the alleged vehicle and that any disputes rise out of any claim in regard to the finance of alleged vehicle, than the same should be adjudicated before an Arbitrator being appointed by the lender at Chennai only and further they have contended that they are not liable for any defect in the alleged vehicle and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
7. Complainant has filed copy of R.C. Book issued in his name, copy of S.D. entry vide no. 648 dated 26.01.2045 issued by Malkangiri P.S., copy of insurance policy valid from 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016, copy of retail invoice issued by Aditya Motors vide no. INV14A001431 dated 03.10.2013, copy of money receipt issued by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. vide no. 13333069, whereas, the O.P.No.1 filed the statement of ledger account showing the payment details paid by the Complainant and the O.P.No.5 filed the statement of account showing the finance amount granted to the Complainant.  Rest O.Ps did not choose to file any documents in support of their contentions. 
    
8. In the instant case, purchase of the alleged vehicle by the Complainant from the O.P. No.2 is admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact that due to accident of the alleged vehicle, the Complainant repaired his vehicle at the service centre of the O.P.No.1 and the said vehicle is financed by the O.P.No.5 and O.P.No.4 has insured the said vehicle.  The allegations of Complainant is that though the said vehicle is surveyed by the surveyor of the O.P.No.4, the O.P.No.1 did not release his vehicle within the stipulated time, for which he contacted with O.P.No.1, 2 & 3 who did not pay any heed, as such he claimed that due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps, they are liable to pay the EMI and interest to the O.P.No.5.  Whereas the O.P. No.1 has strictly challenged the submissions of Complainant and contended that since the Complainant has not paid the balance amount of estimated value on repeated approaches to him, they could not release the vehicle.  On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 contended that the subject matter of the dispute relates to only the service of the alleged vehicle, as such the warranty of the vehicle has been seized as it is not the manufacture defects.  The O.P. No. 4, at the time of hearing, has contended that since the Complainant has not submitted the final bill as per their demand raised by the O.P.No.1, as such they do not have liability for any deficiency in service, whereas, the O.P.No.5 have contended that since they are only the financier of the alleged vehicle, as such they have no relations with any problems occurred in the alleged vehicle.
    
9. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties and since the Complainant did not participate in the hearing inspite of several adjournments given to him keeping in view of natural justice, we lost opportunities to hear from him regarding the fact of the contentions of the Opp. Parties.  So also the Complainant neither appeared before the Fora at any time nor challenged the documents filed by them.  As such the contentions and documents remained unchallenged.  However, we decided the case on merits as the parties have filed certain documents.
    
10. From the contentions and relevant documents filed by the parties, it is clearly established that since the subject matter of the present dispute arose out of an motor vehicle accident, as such the warranty of the alleged vehicle is seized, as the said damage of the vehicle does not belonged to any manufacturing defect, as such the liability cannot be conferred upon the dealer, manufacturer and financier i.e. O.P. No. 2, O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.5. 
     
11. Now coming to the point of allegations against the O.P.No.1, it is found from the documents filed by them that the Complainant himself did not take any proper steps to get his vehicle release from the O.P.No.1 and without doing so, the Complainant indirectly intended to put pressure on the O.P.No.1 which is not sustainable in the eye of law.  Had he paid the balance amount of the estimated value, than the O.P. No.1 could have released the vehicle as on the date of final bill raised by them on dated  17.10.2015 and it is also seen from the document that the alleged vehicle was got repaired  and ready for its delivery to the Complainant since then.  Further as per the submissions and documents filed by the O.P.No.1, it is also found that since the Complainant has cleared of his outstanding dues of Rs. 2,46,408/- to the O.P.No.1 as on 19.11.2015, the said vehicle was handed over to the Complainant.
     
12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No. 4 vehemently urged before us that inspite of repeated approaches, the Complainant did not produce any final bill for early settlement of claim, as such they could not settled the same.  The said contentions of O.P. No.4 is never challenged by the Complainant at any point of time.  Further it is observed that had the Complainant submitted the final estimated bill, than the O.P.No.4 could have settled insurance amount against the alleged vehicle.  And it is also seen from the record that the Complainant has not come to the Fora since the day of admission of the present case till date, as such earlier we directed him to produce the relevant final bills towards repair of the alleged vehicle, but inspite of several adjournments keeping in view of natural justice, the Complainant neither appeared before the Fora nor produced any such documents.  Further it is found from the insurance policy that the alleged vehicle is validly insured on the date of accident, as such the O.P. No. 4 being insurer of the alleged vehicle is herewith directed to release the final assessed value made by their surveyor after they receive the same bills from the Complainant.  Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P.No.4 being insurer of the alleged vehicle is herewith directed to release the final assessed value made by their surveyor whenever they receive the bills from the Complainant within one month, failing which the assessed value will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 26.08.2015.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of March, 2018. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.